Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive152

Resolved

 – 72 hour block for editing abuse; long list of notices. seicer | talk | contribs 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 65.69.81.2 seem to limited to inappropriate edits. How is this handled? Bebestbe (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Warn (as you have done) and if the behaviour continues, seek a block. -Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. In the future, please take cases similar to this to

AIV. Thanks :) seicer | talk | contribs

18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says that this club is this club plays in a league that is at the 11th level of the English football league system or "football pyramid". You should ask on WP:FOOTY at what minimum level an english club needs to be play on to be notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves me, clubs in the top seven tiers are considered inherently notable. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy of clubs from the top 10 levels was originally on

WP:CORP, but was unilaterally removed in this edit. However, it has remained as a well-estbalished consensus since amongst WP:FOOTY members as shown in this discussion in March 2007, and in all the previous AfDs mentioned in the Garstang one. пﮟოьεԻ 57

15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've stayed away from football aside from Norwich City for the last year or so, but in my day it was always "top 10 tiers of the pyramid or fully professional" as the criteria (that "fully professional" bit was to let

iridescent

00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the users, Malik Shabazz, has tried to block some of my accurate edits about MLK's ties to some people who were investigated by the FBI for ties to Communism. I hate to say it, but the user is violating the neutral point of view and good faith policies. I am only trying to say how Myles Horton was never proven to be a Communist, and the user continues to block my edits. While I respect this user's want to reduce hate, unfortunately Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist newspaper American Renaissance, has tried to label Wikipedia as "propaganda" of black nationalism in one of his articles yesterday. If we do not include more facts about MLK's ties to alleged Communists, we may very well expand the White Pride movement. Me, I hate racism. Thank you.Kevin j (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Though this doesn't reflect on the reverting, I don't concern myself one whit with what the White Pride movement views the world, no more than I would the Flat Earth Society. Were I motivated to do anything by the White Pride movement, I would be very concerned about my sense of reality and self. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that

Highlander Folk School (the subject of his source). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs

) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the source says "On the 25th anniversary of the Highland Workshops in 1957, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the featured speaker." Kevin j has written "Critics of King's organization [the SCLC] tried to tie him with Communism through a speech he gave at Highlander Folk School in 1957; the school's head, Myles Horton, had been investigated by the FBI at the time for allegedly being a Communist, but had repeatedly denied being a supporter of the Communist Party and was never convicted of the charge." Trying to write about critics of King or the SCLC based on a source that only mentions that a speech by Dr. King is

WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs

) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having spent ten minutes looking at the diffs, I tend to support Malik Shabazz's take. Kevin j appears to be adding unsourced information, MS appears to be checking the sources and reverting, Kevin j has decided to forum shop to AN. Per Mon 13, Kevin j's arguments (that we should change our article because of the possible opinion of that article held by a repulsive group of losers) is not very compelling. I respectfully suggest Kevin j should slow down and consider very carefully what he is about. Meanwhile, there's nothing to see here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr Tagishsimon, you are wrong. The ADL has stated recently that the number of internet activity has increased among white pride groups.Kevin j (talk)

Which does not amount to an argument for adding unsourced assertions into articles, does it? Nor does the increase of internet activity mean that the information you were trying to add was either appropriate or required, even were it sourced. There is, in short, no connection whatsoever between the internet habits of so-called white pride groups, and your editing of the article, except in your head. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. You are not seeing things from a neutral perspective sir. YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ MY SOURCE-WHICH YES, I DID INCLUDE- AND ARE JUST BELIEVING ANOTHER PERSON'S OPINION.Kevin j (talk)

Hmmm, ALL CAPS. Not exactly the best method of getting everyone to take you seriously. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick browse of the OR edits Kevin J made to the MLK article, and some other recent edits make his claim that his edits are somehow motivated by a concern about expansion of the White Pride movement a bit tenuous. If anything, they seem the opposite, including adding info to Brown v. Board of Education he originally gleaned from that great anti-racist crusader Lew Rockwell. In any case, editing that is guided by concern abuot the White moron movement one way or another is a no-no. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see a little

Agreed...the editor might very well be simply well-intentioned, young and naive (and not highly literate). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm not really sure how to proceed with this one, so I'm just posting about it here.

Banned as an obvious sock. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – General vandalism by an IP. Suggested that the user tag any further removal of the agreed upon image as vandalism.

I'm having a problem on the Solar energy page with an IP user. This user has insisted on a lead graphic which I and many others have objections to. I tried an RfC to work out a resolution back in Nov-Dec and despite a 6 to 1 vote to remove this picture it keeps coming back. Why should something this simple be such a big problem? The issue bogged down the GA process and it looks like it's going to kill the fledgling FAC process. I think if there were other regular editors on the page this IP would go away but it's basically just me and periodically Itsmejudith. I've brought it up here twice before with no response. I'd love some help. Mrshaba (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored the image. I worded the summary wrong. But I suggested you all go to the talk page and discuss changing the image. I will warn the user for Edit Warring. Rgoodermote  00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. We've discussed things extensively:

Image selection. Others have had issues with the picture here. It ticks me off that someone could carry on so long against so many different people. Mrshaba (talk

) 00:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If the IP continues just label the image removal vandalism. Because it is clear that the image is agreed upon.Rgoodermote  00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my... Thank you so much. Mrshaba (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is far from being resolved. Mrshaba is an SPA with a possible COI who is simply blocking content from appearing on the page. Apteva (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is the IP. I would say sock but I haven't seen others. Also, we resolved this on your IP's talk page. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  06:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. And no, not a sock. A long term editor who rarely uses a username. Have asked for mediation, but see no hope of resolution, short of chastising Mrshaba. Apteva (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't called you a sock, but sorry if I made you feel like I did. Anyways, to resolve this you shouldn't be annoying the user. You should first all find an agreed upon resolution. You already have my suggestion and I feel that is the best. I also believe you two should sit down and talk it out peacefully. You are both near the realms of incivility and have both of you have been in an edit war. I am hoping nobody blocks you two and they will not if you agree to just talk it out and listen to each other. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  06:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked here - Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#Is_it_time_to_can_this_page_and_process.3F - whether it is worthwhile continuing with this process. Is it fair that some admins are on it and others aren't, and also, what can be accomplished here that cannot with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or arbitration? Anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

...is backlogged again; some of the entries are a week old. All users are welcome to help out. shoy 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing what I can to help out, but more eyes would really be great. GlassCobra 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Please do not make backlog requests on this page. As the template at the top of this page points out, the proper procedure is to add an {{adminbacklog}} template to any area that is backlogged and requires administrative attention. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cleared it out, waiting on an admin to come through and process all the CSDs. bornhj ^(talk) 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I am in the right place, so I apologize up front for that. I am a new contributor here, and I thought I was making good decent edits. But, I feel like I got a back handed accusal of Conflict of Interest sneaked in with a Welcome, which I felt to be patronizing for the real warning. Can someone take a look at 1) my edits; 2) the history of my talk page (I deleted the "Welcome-COI" note); and 3) the message I left on my user page, and tell me what I have done wrong? If things aren't right just tell me and/or block me. Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're a new contributor, deleting warnings from your Talk page so early in your career is not advisable. User:Herbythyme tends to have good judgment about external links, and you could probably have a conversation with him as to what links might be included per our Wikipedia:External links policy. The COI warning is routinely given when it appears possible that a new contributor might have promotional intent. Your addition of links, combined with your user name which suggests you might have an interest in an organization based in Fortuna, may be what gave rise to that. Having a sensible conversation with Herby would be a way to dispel that impression. Using the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries when removing removing a good-faith edit by an experienced contributor is not likely to win friends or influence people. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the warning BEFORE I added any "External links", other than as references. I had not added a link to the "External links" section. The "History" section did not have any references before I added some. The person should have looked at the additions, not just because they were links, but how and why they were used, before slipping in a warning under a "Welcome" banner. I think it was cheap, and discourages me and possibly other new users. So, tell me what I did that was wrong? This beating around the bush, or hinting, double-speak, isn't sitting well with me. Best O Fortuna (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay: you've asked for a second opinion. Here it is, square on the nose. Are you ready? Having looked at your edits, as well as the timing of the COI message, I can find nothing wrong with your actions, and on the contrary, in the time dedicated to looking at your work, I judge it to be of higher than normal quality. My view: Herby was a way too quick off the mark with the COI. Hope that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess I will take that as it is safe to go back in the water? I don't see any fins, but I didn't see any before either. I just want you guys to actually look at the edits before handing out COIs and the like. I am guessing that some good quality contributors have been lost like this. Less good editors mean more bad ones as a percentage. Please let your fellow warning distributors know. Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right about lost contributions due to overzealous RC patrollers; there are lots of people here who are more concerned about following to the letter guidelines and general statements like "We shouldn't have too many external links because some of them might be bad" than producing a relevantly-hyperlinked encyclopedia article. There's nothing wrong with what you were doing. While I'm not condoning the actions of Herby, you have to understand that we get a lot of linkspam, and not everyone who watches contributions always assumes good faith and tries to reason it out with the other editor before engaging in edit wars; while it isn't a good thing, obviously, it happens. Just live with it,

don't feed the trolls, and keep on improving the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me}

04:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is probably worth reiterating that poor innocent Best O Fortuna had not touched the external links section, fullstop.. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I apologised to the user without hesitation for any offence caused. However I also pointed out that the template clearly says may have a connection. Equally my edit was reverted by the user as "vandalism". --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Someone deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This file has a duplicate in the wikicommons, and I would appreciate if an administrator could rename it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circumcision_by_Country.png

The newer version in the commons is a better version of the map to illustrate worldwide circumcision rates. Thanks Revasser (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to just delete the local version? Kevin (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The version on Commons contains this exact copy in it's history, so I would think it would be safe to use

WP:CSD#I8. -- Ned Scott

06:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the original version being deleted - but I'm not sure how to go about that. If you administrators could do so, that would be perfect. Revasser (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin but) Certainly, though just to let you know, you can tag certain images and pages that meet the

WP:CSD#I8. -- Ned Scott

06:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - now we wait. Thanks a lot for your help. :) Revasser (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp's most common IP range is under a hard block. He has figured out a new trick to get the block modified so he can vandalize.

He makes rapid vandal edits to the IP talk page (which is the only page he can edit while hard blocked, [1]). Some unsuspecting admin blocks the IP for "vandalism" anon-only and ACB. However, single IP blocks override hard blocks, so this now allows him to edit from that IP using previously registered sleeper accounts.

When dealing with IP vandalism from the Grawp range (mostly 71.107.x.x and 71.108.x.x) check for rangeblocks first using the rangeblock finder on the IP talk page, and then protect the IP user and talk page if necessary, or hard-block the IP, but do not soft-block the IP. Thatcher 11:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enlightening. Thanks. Rudget (logs) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not fix it so a single block doesn't override the rangeblock? Jtrainor (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jtrainor. Isn't this a bug that should be fixed? Or has it already been filed at Bugzilla? hbdragon88 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's deliberate, so that if there's a "good" IP caught in a rangeblock, it can be unblocked. What we should do is have a bot or someone with AWB drop a note on all the talk pages there, with a summary of Grawp's new trick. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: what about an option in the block form that disables the ability to unblock an individual IP when setting a rangeblock? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That bot/AWB idea of Nwwaew's is a good one. It should be on the userpage, though, not the talk page (or both), as I would imagine the first thing that would go woul dbe that notice.

龱

19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be simpler to include Grawp's ip range as part of the "sensitive ip addresses" notice on the block form page, with a note to hard block ip's rather than soft block. I admit I don't pay as much attention as I did to that template, but it would be of assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, other vandals are also creating sock accounts for Grawp. I caught JtV doing it yesterday. If certain vandals persist in that and wish to make a career of it, they also risk rangeblocks (yeah, even on telecomitalia.it) - Alison ^❤ 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran into that yesterday and wondered what was up with that. I protected the page, but didn't issue a block. Another admin did. Anyways, it would be nice if the block screen would give a warning that a range block is in effect for a particular IP. The rangeblock finder is easy enough to use, but it's yet another step that I would have to remember to use. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconding and emphasizing the above comment, “…it would be nice if the block screen would give a warning that a range block is in effect for a particular IP.” —

^talk

20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thirding. Has anyone proposed that anywhere? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened bugzilla:14634 requesting currently active range blocks be listed on Special:BlockIP, all inerested parties should feel free to add appropriate comments. The ball is now in the developer's court to determine if it is practical to add this enhancement. --Allen3 ^talk 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you guys should know about 76.172.178.99 which was editing mainspace freely without receiving any prior block to mine, I don't think that this one was using that particular trick. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's Grawp. Enigma ^message 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doppelgängers aren't of much help either, but I don't think that by a matter of chance this user appeared today a few hours after a series of Grawp moves. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, that's pretty clever. Sad that someone wastes what is probably a gifted mind on vandalizing Wikipedia. After looking again at the conversation above, I agree that the block page should prompt somehow or have a notice that the IP is already blocked via rangeblock. That would effectively solve the problem, as I doubt admins would block anon only if it's already part of a hard rangeblock. Enigma ^message 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest lobbying whoever takes over Huggle (currently

iridescent

17:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I bother adding a comment to the article (on their website, not Wikipedia) telling them they're wasting their time? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No.

iridescent

17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just wondered. I hadn't seen that other guy's comment. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has (at the time I wrote this) 77 pages (not counting images) waiting for review. I marked one of them as patrolled nearly two hours ago. Just wanted to let you know... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Something odd is going on there...

Aldeberan, Epsilon Eridani, Tau Boötis, and Upsilon Andromedae (all notable stars) are listed, but none of them have the CSD tag, nor does it appear that they have had it over the course of their last 100 edits. Anyone have an idea what's going on at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? Horologium (talk)

17:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably one of the templates which is 'up' for deletion, which is transcluded onto those particular pages. Rudget (logs) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They all transcluded

iridescent

17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an old unused template, now deleted. Purge C:CSD, the star articles should be removed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:Jeanne boleyn a barnstar of "Racial Purity" . Content of user's page suggests to me that user may not be aware of the implications. Ning-ning (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From some of her contributions, I'd say she is very well aware of the connotations. The Barnstar should go.DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP is absolutely aware per its contribs. Removed. giggy _(:O) 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I saw this on her userpage. My politics are far- right; I'm a Monarchist, I believe in God, and I despise the current PC mentality. Clearly she didnt care about the connotation. This should probably be monitered. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This less than civil "editor" just left this message on my talk page. Could an admin resolve it. [2].— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given the editor the standard "free speech does not apply on Wikipedia" speech. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I was concerned about this comment; I have the right to detest the PC mentality, which is rearing it's hideously ugly head right at this moment and breathing it's foul, rancid , stifling breath into my face and trying to strangle all individuality and freedom of thought. Which is a person attack against myself. Seriously is my breath that bad? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now she has reported me to another admin seen here. Please this is a little silly. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 07:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't see that as a personal attack. It seems to me to be an attack on the general movement of the PC culture, not on you. You are reading too much into that, as you are to the Pigman thread. They are entitled to be riled somewhat, as are you. Just let it go now I think, move on, if they act in a racist manner in the future, then they will be blocked. Woody (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say diffs like this [3] suggest to me that the editor should be very closely monitored for both racism and personal attacks. She has apologized to the target of that attack, but still I feel that she should be watched. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Hill, I should inform you that I am married to an Italian, two of my children are Italian citizens as well as half Italian by blood. In fact, my 17 year old Italian son is beside me now. I have seen hateful remarks directed at the British, the Irish, Americans,Jews, etc. I have never used an ethnic or racist slur. I always profusely apologise when I let my impulsive temper get out of hand. Might I suggest that you men resent a female who has strong opinions of her own? I'm sorry but I feel ganged up on by a group of young men because I'm a woman whose political views do not coincide with your own. I have the right to my opinions as you do your own. Monitor me if you wish-it's your right to do so as it's my right to protest this bullying.jeanne (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a damn if you are a woman or a man, if you make offensive racist comments such as the one I linked above, or say that you appreciate a "barnstar of racial purity" then I will call you on it. Profuse apologies are all very well - but to complain when an editor rightly removes racist material from a talk-page is to me very suggestive of your underlying attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way - thanks for calling me young - I don't get that much nowadays! DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Might I suggest that you men resent a female who has strong opinions of her own? I'm sorry but I feel ganged up on by a group of young men because I'm a woman whose political views do not coincide with your own" - oh come on now, you surely realise that you're skating on thin ice. Appart from all else, everyone knows that internet users are unisexual, as it's very rare that a user goes their whole life without being mistaken for the opposite gender ;). Now, in case you're being serious, I can assure you that anything going on here has nothing to do with anyone's gender, just as it has nothing to do with anyone's race, religeous belief, political views etc. _TalkIslander 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As a lurker on the AN page, I think I can safely say that sexism is not an issue, since gender is mostly not evident in a username. Some of the most revered members on Wikipedia are women. I think people are taken back by your opinions, as you stated on your user page that you are prone to expressing them as you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The most ironic part of this controversy is that there is no such thing as an "Irish race" or an "Italian race." There are no human races. The only way such people differ is in culture. Even people from lands as distant as Africa are almost identical genetically to people from Ireland. Humans are far more similar to each other genetically than other animals. What a idiotic barnstar! And her comment that somehow an Italian should feel guilty for the actions of his ancestors is also ridiculous and offensive. Even though I am also of "Celtic" ancestry I find such chauvinism deeply offensive to my humanity. No one, regardless of their surname, deserves to be addressed in such a manner.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well put, Hello I'm New Here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Duncan. :) --Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there's no such thing as race, how can I be called a racist? You just walked into that one with your eyes wide open. Also, I AM MARRIED TO AN ITALIAN, TWO OF MY CHILDREN ARE ITALIAN, I DID NOT PUT THE CELTIC CROSS ON MY TALK PAGE I AM NOT A RACIST. Now can we call an end to this pathetic farce of an Inquisition?!!It really has become, like, totally BORING, so if you'll excuse me I'd like to take a jaunt over to YouTube and have a wee listen to The Undertones, Cockney Rebel and Lene Lovich, so I can really be entertained. CIAO.jeanne (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not a racist, yet you express appreciation of a "barnstar of racial purity". You are not a racist, yet you only want to see "Irish faces" when in Dublin. You are not a racist, yet you base an apology on an editors "Celtic blood". Bollocks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop taunting each other, both of you. This is unseemly and against our policies to

behave in a civil and adult manner towards one another. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See meta:Board elections/2008/Results/en. Perhaps a watchlist notice might be in order? Naerii 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order for m:User:Wing - Well done sir! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck Wing. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats to Wing. I don't know 'bout no watchlist notice though. Really? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to Wing from me. Regarding the watchlist notice, there's an announcement of the results at the top-central part of the screen, so I don't think a watchlist notice is really needed. Acalamari 21:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive437#Where_do_I_go_next.3F

So there's nothing I can do about this? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Typically, follow the warning levels and report to

WP:AIV. Is this a slow edit war or something that doesn't really fit there? Saying "repeatedly" doesn't help as much as diffs would. I can't tell from the other edits what's going on (that whole Warhammer 40,000 is WAY too in-universe if someone who knows a bit has no clue what's being argued). -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 10:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI could be the right venue too. Supply diffs next time, that may be why you got no response, admins are busy and generally won't hunt for evidence, you need to provide it. — Rlevse • Talk

• 10:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my error - I thought I had placed this on

WP:ANI - it was only when I looked at my contribs I released it was on the wrong admin page. Please mark as resolved or remove, as applicable. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!)

12:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair few redirect pages have been tagged as uncategorised by User 91.198.174.201 and User SoxBot VII - whether they're the same, I don't know. Is there a problem somewhere in the code ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ignore this - I see this issue has been covered at WP:ANI CultureDrone (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

After I placed the speedy deletion tag on the article, the article's creator deleted the tag. Went to the user's talk page...apparently the article had been tagged before. Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted again. Kevin (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And again; I salted it this time. Horologium (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A large amount of work has been in progress by the Arbitration Committee, in the background, for a considerable time, to look at a number of systemic problems deemed of importance, and possible solutions. These have now been posted up. They include a package of some 10 measures, mostly related to one of three things - things needed so the Committee can do its job without being clogged up; things needed to try and finally address a few of the more serious, systemic and perennial dispute resolution problems that repeatedly waste editor's efforts and time, and a number of clarifications and other matters.

Included in this is an announcement regarding Checkuser access.

It's been a lot of work, and a lot of deep thought. We do not plan to do it often, but we equally believe that if these work we have targetted each of the main problems we are aware of, in a very clear way, rather than "half hearted tinkering at the edges". The long term harm of these is non-trivial.

There will be discussion. I look forward to it. please take time to analyze the announcements as a whole, and read the small print carefully :)

With respect,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee

(Minor note, I will be away much of the rest of today, until Saturday. Please be aware of this if I do not myself reply immediately. There will be many comments, hopefully the pages are mostly self explanatory and most questions will sustain a day or two's delay if needed. It'll be discussed longer than that. It took longer than I thought to finish writing up. It's been some days in the writing. - FT2)

Main page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements

Index of sub-pages:

• Appeals Review List
• Checkuser appointments
• BLP enforcement guidance
• Consensus seeking processes
• Clarifying the role of the Committee
• Activation of view-deleted-pages
• Skilled content warriors
• Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

-- Thatcher 15:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of editing others' talk page comments, despite being warned several times not to do so. See his talk page and the talk page archive--it's littered with warnings about this behavior. It's been the subject of at least two admin discussions ((here and here) He's been blocked at least eight times for this since 2007, each time promising to stop. He's also engaged in similar behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia. Most recently, he was blocked for three months--but this was reduced to three weeks, with a stern warning that the next block would be much, much longer and possibly indef.

Well, earlier,

• Support ban — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban It's not just the talk pages either, it's main article editing. There were lots of problems with his behavior on Ruby Muhammad, for example, and I think that at least one of his blocks (possibly one of mine) related to his distortion and refusal to abide by talk page consensus on this page. Cheers, CP 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I'm no fan of Bart's edits to other users' comments, how is this edit the last straw? It wasn't exactly an on-topic comment that he removed, and I probably would have removed it too. Looking at his contributions since the last block, this appears to be the only time he continued the same behavior. This is not ban worthy, and the indefinite block should be reversed. - auburnpilot talk 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - diff shown isn't ban worthy. PhilKnight (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban - CP sums it up.
  93
  03:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. He may be trouble at times, but if that edit's the last straw, then we'd have to ban an awful lot of people. His block log says quite a bit about him doing this in the past, though how many of his edits have been modifying comments and how many have been removing edits like the one above are two very different causes for alarm. Wizardman 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. The stated diff is admittedly trivial, but this is just the last in a LONG stream of behaviour which snubs the TPG guideline. He refactors other's comments often, including removing edits, despite promises not to do so any more. Dutch Wikipedia block log shows this is not just a problem here. Please also read this which shows how exasperating the user is. Moondyne 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I'm aware of the user's past issues, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that diff. He removed some nonsense comments from a talk page after adding a template to it. I probably would have done the same thing, and have done so. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Z-man. Indef should be overturned if he notes what he's done wrong and agrees to do something constructive about it (read: ask for second opinions even in cases like this.) giggy _(:O) 05:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have some sympathy with anyone who fixes other people's posts. I've done it myself in the past, but I hope I know where the line should be drawn. I try to limit myself to fixing things like incorrect formatting (eg. closing a bold or italics bit), fixing a header if the number of "===" are wrong, fixing a link if it wasn't closed properly, fixing incorrect wikimarkup taggs (eg. a <small> or <nowiki> tag not closed), and even egregious spelling mistakes if I can resist (I know I should resist!). I also try and only do it while adding a comment myself anyway. The difference, I suppose, is that I haven't been asked to stop as many times as Bart has, though someone did ask me not to the other day. I then promptly apologised. Let's see if I can find some diffs. OK, here is an example from yesterday: [4]. I had clicked on the link
  WT:WPBIO. Other times, I do cross the line, particularly with regards to indentation. Normally, when I see an indentation I don't understand, I ask the person concerned. However, the other day I "fixed" an indentation: [5]. The editor in question asked me not to do this: [6]. I then apologised: [7]. I also found another example of fixing. See here: [8]. So what is needed here, I think, is recognition that some fixing is possible, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and if you cross it you should just apologise and adjust your behaviour. The question is whether Bart is crossing this line (we need specific and recent diffs) and whether he is adjusting his behaviour (Bart needs to speak up and say something). From reviewing this, I think he is crossing the line (he actually alters what other people have said). Whether he is continuing to do that (the diff provided here was merely removing a comment that was off-topic) is debatable. Providing old diffs may not be enough to prove that he is slipping back to his old behaviour. I recognise that he has done this in the past, but I don't think an indefinite block is needed for this (it is not dangerous disruption, just highly annoying and misleading). I would also note that there is history between Bart and Canadian Paul on the "oldest people" articles. Unblock Bart and let him respond here. Carcharoth (talk
  ) 08:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support block True, the diff provided indicates a very minor incident - but one that is part of a long standing problem with this editor. We have been here many times, and often BV has promised to reform and not edit other peoples contributions and the community has given them another chance. Once again, it has been found that BV is incapable of keeping to that undertaking. Rather than commenting on the admittedly minor nature of most of these edits, can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP? If that is not possible, then can anyone indicate why they think that this "last chance" will alter BV's attitude toward editing other peoples contributions?
  It is fairly obvious that a ban is not possible - there are too many good opposes to it - so I am content to support the indef block. The block can be lifted when there is community support for allowing BV to edit again, under such restrictions, mentoring, edit paroles, as is considered sufficient to resolve the matter, or not lifted as is deemed necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That would make sense. Someone should tell him about this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I will make a note on the user talkpage. If there is sufficient reasoning in any unblock request I recommend unblocking to allow BV to participate here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP?" Well, LessHeard vanU, I'd say Bart Versieck's contributions speak for themselves in that respect. Since his last block, Bart has made 195 edits. Only one indicates a continued behavior, when he changed the word merger to merge (simply removing an "R"). The majority of his edits remain unaltered (not reverted/still the top edit), and that would suggest they are valuable and beneficial to the project. - auburnpilot talk 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Which is good, but are they edits that are of particular value that could not be made by anybody else? Is the community risking a noticable dip in the quality of editing by blocking this account, or will others likely take up the slack? I am trying to determine whether there is a case for the community allowing yet another last chance, or to provide assistance to stop this behaviour, rather than allowing the indef to stand. It seems to me that if this behaviour is to be "tolerated" rather than sanctioned there should really be some gain to the encyclopedia for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • LessHeard vanU, to play the devil's advocate here, what edits have any of us made (and you in particular) that could not have been made by anyone else? That is a very dangerous line of reasoning you are following. Thank you for posting the note to Bart's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly my point. I would (like to think I would) not expect dispensation for a repeated problem of mine based on my contributions. I don't see why the far greater majority of good edits should allow a pattern of disruptive edits be ignored or passed over. This is not an isolated incident, but an apparent inability to not slide back into bad habits, and to remain true to an undertaking. It needs to be resolved and not allowed to continue on the basis of "it was only a little one, and the rest of the time they have been okay." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)That's simply not how we determine whether or not somebody should be indefinitely blocked. We don't say "Yeah, your edits are good, but they're not good enough". Of course somebody would pick up the slack, just as somebody would pick up the slack if I disappeared after making this edit. Yet, nobody is proposing I be indef blocked because somebody else could do what I do. One questionable edit out of 195 since his last block does not warrant a ban or indef block. Bottom line. - auburnpilot talk 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • • But it isn't just one in the last 195, but the last in a long line of disruptive edits over a very long period. The other points I have covered in my response to Carcharoth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely uninvolved editor checking in here, but isn't this editor already blocked indefinitely? I would suggest that this is the case, see: Block log. I still didn't see the reason clearly enunciated for the block, certainly the dif provided seemed quite insignificant and could have been attributed to a vandal's adding onto a page. FWiW, I have tried to sift through the very extensive edit history of the aforementioned editor, and what some would characterize as "disruptive," others may see as examples of content disputes. I would caution restraint and suggest a mentorship based on the "critical friend" model that allows the editor to initially seek a counsel before entering into contentious situations. Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC).
  • • comment I edit on alot of the same pages as Canadian Paul and Bart. Which mostly are the supercentenarian pages. Im curious to ask if anybody has asked Bart why he deleted the comment on the talk page? --Npnunda (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban per nom. Postoak (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how there is clearly no consensus here for a community ban, I suggest he be unblocked, especially given the horrible evidence used for blocking in the first place. On a side note, unless there is some sort of an emergency which there clearly wasn't in this case (the edit used as reasoning was 3 days before the block), isn't it customary to discuss before applying the block? Mr.Z-man 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban It is bad to edit or remove others' talk page comments, but I don't think it would be correct to ban him from the project. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban Very out of proportion block/ban. -- Ned Scott 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A compromise?

Seeing as there's some pretty strong opposition to a ban, I won't object to cutting the block down. But seeing as he's engaged in this behavior with many warnings--even if he isn't banned, I would think a long-term block is in order in light of his past behavior and his repeated broken promises to stop. Indeed, in one of the earlier discussions, quite a few admins wondered why he hadn't already been slapped with a long block.

How about a deal where:

1. He is unblocked now
2. He voluntarily accepts a restriction that he can be immediately re-blocked for one month by ANY administrator, even an involved one, if he touches anyone else's Talk page comment in the slightest way, even to remove what appears to be a vandal comment. Such a block would require only a simple announcement by the blocking admin at
   WP:AN
   that the reblock had been done. The reblock would double on each occurrence.

I suggest this mostly because the most recent example of a violation seems too harmless to issue a long remedy. But under the new plan it would be blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

While I much prefer the indef block, I could live with this. The biggest trouble is having to rejustify and rehash every single time he's disruptive. Issuing a month-long block is likely to attract the attention of other admins who may think it silly to give such a long block for minor offenses, which means we have to do a whole other long discussion recapping attempting to convince others about the nature of his behavior. If I (or anyone else) can point to a community decision, that makes things a lot easier. I'm a little hesitant to unblock him immediately, however, because he also violated the

WP:BLP violations. Cheers, CP

20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I wouldn't be adverse to an immediate unblock so they can take part in this discussion - but there needs to be the unblock request first. Any sanction can then be applied after the discussion when there is consensus. It would be beyond foolishness for there to be any problematic edits during the discussion, so it wouldn't be placing the encyclopedia at risk to unblock under such circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's understood that it'll eventually go up to indef with repeated violations of this restriction, I can go along wtih this. To my mind, knowing that a bunch of admins are hovering over him with banhammers at the ready is just as effective as a long block.

96

22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Having admins hovering over you with the banhammer is enough to effectively end someone's wiki-career. I know it was his own actions that brought him to that point, but just stop a moment and think whether you would be able to edit under that sort of pressure? I sometimes think it would be more dignified to put someone out of their misery. There is also an unwritten assumption here that he has to be squeaky-clean for some undefined period of time. Will he ever be able to relax again or not? A year, two years, three years? These sort of probationary periods should always have a time limit on them, and should never be open-ended. I will personally say here that if Bart agrees to this and edits with no problems for three months, then a breach of the conditions after three months should lead to a short block and reimposition of a three-month probation under the hair-trigger banhammer (or

Sword of Damocles, as we should call it), rather than a jump to indefinite. Otherwise, you may get the silly position of people, a year later, pointing to this discussion to justify a ban. In my view, just as we warn before most blocks, we should also warn before a ban discussion. An official last, last chance if you like. Not everyone realises they are running the risk of a ban until the ban discussion starts. Carcharoth (talk

) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

After seeing Carcharoth's view, looking at the Ruby Muhammad debate, and going through this editor's Talk archives to peruse the discussions around the block notices, I'm changing my position to Support the indef block. There was more than just the Talk-editing problem here, though that was the most flagrant issue. If indef is too long, how about one year. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I've run into this guy and things haven't improved. Sadly, support a long block.
  talk
  ) 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: why don't you formally topic ban him on ever removing or editing *any* comment by other editors on talk pages instead of doing a full ban? That would leave him an opportunity to continue his work on articles. If he violates the ban, then you can temporally block him for a long time or indefinitely --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't support a longer block. I think the suggestion of EdJohnston is good. Unblock him, and if he edit or remove other's talk page comments, any admin can block him for a longer period. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, this has been done before. Refer to his Block log and the most recent deal on his talk page where he made a promise to accept conditional editing privileges with the edit comment "good deal". Can someone explain why it'll be any different this time? Moondyne 04:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• sure, give him another last chance, it will result in an indef ban anyway at some point. he simply doesn't appear to see what he is doing wrong, every block he opposes shows he doesn't (want to) understand why he was banned. the suggestion by EdJohnston is nice (though he himself sees later there is more to it), give it try and see where it goes, it got my money on another talkpage edit within weeks, maybe days. Boneyard (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• We've been through the block -> "promise not to do it again" -> repeat violation cycle so many times with no results. Versieck is warned at each violation that he will be blocked for an extended period or be banned. Time to practice what we preach. I feel that the original 3 month block should take effect as originally defined by the administrator. His ability to edit articles should be restored after the block. If it happens again, then he is banned. Postoak (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• User is asking again for unblock with a template on his talk page. See also his comments below in the transcluded section of his talk page. While I'll admit, I'm new to this situation and have not gone through all Bart's checkered past, I don't think that the removal of that forumy comment should be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That being said, should he be unblocked, I do endorse a topic ban on all editing of others talk page comments (no matter how forumy or trollish) and Bart seems willing to submit to such a topic ban as seen below. –
  talk
  ) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

initally he again doesn't appear to understand why he should keep away from talk pages, then he gives in with a single line, a line we have seen several times before. then finally he again doesn't accept the reason for the block, he keeps thinking it is unfair, without him understanding what he is doing wrong it will never stop.

Xenocidic when someone keeps breaking the same (perhaps small) rule then at some point a small edit will have a huge effect. to the admin who unblocks this user please make it very clear to him to which rules apply to him once he starts editing again and be willing to follow up with an indef this time. Boneyard (talk

) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Partial transclusion of User talk:Bart Versieck

• I have created this section of Bart's talk page so he can make a statement to the
  talk
  ) 14:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a very big problem indeed, because my computer's browser at home doesn't accept cookies anymore since a couple of days (hence my anonymous contributions yesterday evening, which have been deleted afterwards, and now I'm at my job's), but I honestly don't understand at all why I have been blocked this time around (no harm done): could you explain, please, for that so-called "violation" has just been a justified deletion, and one that has been restored by someone else, by the way, so I'm definitely going to appeal this block, plus, moreover, an eternal ban is absolutely out of proportion. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit is not "a violation of the talkpage consensus", it's just mentioning the fact that her claim is not proven, so it's a longevity claim: alternative date of birth and "ostensibly". Extremely sexy (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But why would it be forbidden for me anyway to edit a talkpage at all, especially since the one concerned is justified? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of keeping this unarchived at WP:AN - since the block appears still to be in place, you may be glad of it - I would reply that it is very dangerous for you to remove (wholly or partly) any editors comments, be they vandalism or not. You have a record of doing this inappropriately, and (as can be seen on the AN thread) very few people are going to get into a debate of whether it was justified or not. I would suggest, should you be allowed to edit again, that the next time you see something that needs removing you report it to someone else to review and act. It might not seem "fair", but you do need to accept the consequences of your previous behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the best solution. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat, for "Postoak" and the like, that my so-called "violation" has turned out to be a legitimate edit, which was, moreover, restored only a couple of hours afterwards by another editor, so this ban is utterly unjustified. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted, it is agreed that any removal in whole or part of any other accounts comments on a talkpage is inappropriate and prohibited, and you will seek the review of another editor (and I am willing to look at any such matter) in respect of any potential vandal comment. On this basis I have unblocked the account. Again, as I have commented, this is the very last of the last chances you have had and if this matter arises again I will be the admin proposing we first melt down the key, grind it into tiny pieces, and then fling random pieces among the high mountains, dry deserts and very deep oceans (or enact a community ban, if easier). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Please, just get on with editing the encyclopedia and consign this episode to the past!

Hello... just wanted to double-check something regarding appropriate use of user talk pages, as I can't find anything in the regular guides. I've got a new user (User:Dumpster muffin) who is repeated blanking his/her talk page (their prerogative, of course) and replacing it with multiple copies of a very high resolution image. This of course results in multiple large files loading when one goes to that page, which (for all intents and purposes) renders the page non-functional. Use of the image appears legit, as it is a US government "public domain" file from Commons. However, I'm on the verge of blocking the guy because he keeps restoring the page. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like image vandalism to me. Granted it's not in the article space. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd want to say

WP:DICK applies, but basically, it's just disruptive and a preventative block seems appropriate. If he's really nuts about it, his talk page will have to protected. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 09:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There was an interesting discussion on m:Talk:Don't be a dick about what constitutes being a dick. I reckon this meets the bill. Blocking won't stop them being a dick on their talk page, but protecting it will. giggy _(:O) 09:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, being a dick shouldn't be the sole reason for blocks (it'd be much quieter around these parts then), but protecting would make it so that basically no one but admins could use the talk page. That's still not useful. A block to stop them from continuing to do it is the key. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know - the dick stuff was more philosophical than relevant. Block them, and if they keep going, protect the page. giggy _(:O) 11:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. The guy seems to have stopped for now, I'm assuming because WBOSITG also removed the images. (Strength in numbers...) Might be worth a mention somewhere as part of what is (and isn't) considered appropriate on talk pages. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem" errors recently ? Normally, I can edit without seeing any, but today I must have had at least a dozen....the error itself is shown as "Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cable_barrier&action=submit, from 91.198.174.37 via sq23.wikimedia.org (squid/2.6.STABLE18) to 10.0.5.3 (10.0.5.3) Error: ERR_ZERO_SIZE_OBJECT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:24 GMT" - is there somewhere I should report this ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:VP/T is probably the right place for this. shoy

13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

More hardware is what is needed. But then, I would say that... I work for a hardware company... and I think it's being looked into. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My user name was blocked a long time ago, even though my page had information typed in from other wikipedia users that my name should not be blocked. And yet I got blocked anyway.....the person who blocked me thinks im some white nazi person or something when im not. Im actually Indian. My user name is User:Aryan818, can you please unblock me? Ive been blocked for a billion years now. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message was posted to one of the MedCom pages. Sunray (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This account is not blocked, according to the block log. Kevin (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be an autoblock - what message comes up when you try to edit? Hut 8.5 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual account may be ARYAN818 (talk · contribs), which is indeed indefinitely blocked. ANI discussion may be of interest. Admins may want to browse the user's deleted talk page as well; especially of interest would be this edit (admins only), which was from May of this year and is an uppercase personal attack more than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this diff from the above IP is also of interest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that adding "DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER" to one's User page does not apparently prevent admins from blocking one. Now, the IP's contribs are overwhelmingly to Indian related topics (with the notable exception of this rather scary item) but without access to deleted contribs I can't offer much more info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, for the record. It was a good block at the time, and I don't see that anything has changed since then. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing has changed since this ANI discussion. It is unlikely that the user, who claims he is of Indian background, has the name "Aryan," a word which doesn't exist in any Indian language; the Sanskrit word for "noble" is "Arya." Besides, even if his name is Aryan, he should find another user name, since "Aryan" offends many people. If my parents had made the mistake of christening me with one or all of the seven dirty words, it wouldn't give me the right to demand those usernames as an act of filial homage to parental stupidity. No reason why Wikipedians should be wasting their time on this tired nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are being are tad harsh Fowler. I also oppose unblocking him because he has been reluctant to realise the sensitivity of his username and he has responded very rudely whenever anyone has tried to make him understand this. However, chances are that his name is Aryan since it is a quite common name in India, regardless of whether the word exists in Indian languages. Also he hasn't edited in any Nazi related areas so to almost accuse (I realise you only use the word unlikely) the user of pretending to be Indian and having the name Aryan is assuming bad faith. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So when are you going to block this? Or this? ;^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do your research you will find that the Hindu Swastika has been under a lot of controversy and many editors wanted to remove it from all Hinduism related templates and have it replaced with an

Aum sign. It wasn't going to be removed from any article because on an article, the context can explain the significance and relevance of the swastika. Also, the unfortunate thing for Aryan is that the number 818 also has Nazi connotations. One part of a username having Nazi connections doesn't seem that bad, but when both parts can be related to Nazism it most people who see this user at first glance won't believe that it is a coincidence. Gizza^{Discuss ©}

06:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just the use of the "Aryan" name which is problematic, although it is, but the addition of the "818", which is a neo-Nazi symbol for "Heil Adolf Hitler". This user didn't seem to understand that, although he might not think the name is offensive (and it is, with a great deal of assumption of good faith, possible that the user is not intentionally being offensive), but that other users consider it offensive, and that is the criterion that should be used. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See

Damnit that was a shortcut to his userpage - what am I going to use now? Viridae^Talk 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimbo is probably the same number of keystrokes if you're not in the habit of keeping caps lock activated. —giggy

05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That works :P Viridae^Talk 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My user name was blocked a long time ago, even though my page had information typed in from other wikipedia users that my name should not be blocked. And yet I got blocked anyway.....the person who blocked me thinks im some white nazi person or something when im not. Im actually Indian. My user name is User:Aryan818, can you please unblock me? Ive been blocked for a billion years now. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message was posted to one of the MedCom pages. Sunray (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This account is not blocked, according to the block log. Kevin (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be an autoblock - what message comes up when you try to edit? Hut 8.5 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual account may be ARYAN818 (talk · contribs), which is indeed indefinitely blocked. ANI discussion may be of interest. Admins may want to browse the user's deleted talk page as well; especially of interest would be this edit (admins only), which was from May of this year and is an uppercase personal attack more than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this diff from the above IP is also of interest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that adding "DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER" to one's User page does not apparently prevent admins from blocking one. Now, the IP's contribs are overwhelmingly to Indian related topics (with the notable exception of this rather scary item) but without access to deleted contribs I can't offer much more info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, for the record. It was a good block at the time, and I don't see that anything has changed since then. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing has changed since this ANI discussion. It is unlikely that the user, who claims he is of Indian background, has the name "Aryan," a word which doesn't exist in any Indian language; the Sanskrit word for "noble" is "Arya." Besides, even if his name is Aryan, he should find another user name, since "Aryan" offends many people. If my parents had made the mistake of christening me with one or all of the seven dirty words, it wouldn't give me the right to demand those usernames as an act of filial homage to parental stupidity. No reason why Wikipedians should be wasting their time on this tired nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are being are tad harsh Fowler. I also oppose unblocking him because he has been reluctant to realise the sensitivity of his username and he has responded very rudely whenever anyone has tried to make him understand this. However, chances are that his name is Aryan since it is a quite common name in India, regardless of whether the word exists in Indian languages. Also he hasn't edited in any Nazi related areas so to almost accuse (I realise you only use the word unlikely) the user of pretending to be Indian and having the name Aryan is assuming bad faith. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So when are you going to block this? Or this? ;^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do your research you will find that the Hindu Swastika has been under a lot of controversy and many editors wanted to remove it from all Hinduism related templates and have it replaced with an

Aum sign. It wasn't going to be removed from any article because on an article, the context can explain the significance and relevance of the swastika. Also, the unfortunate thing for Aryan is that the number 818 also has Nazi connotations. One part of a username having Nazi connections doesn't seem that bad, but when both parts can be related to Nazism it most people who see this user at first glance won't believe that it is a coincidence. Gizza^{Discuss ©}

06:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just the use of the "Aryan" name which is problematic, although it is, but the addition of the "818", which is a neo-Nazi symbol for "Heil Adolf Hitler". This user didn't seem to understand that, although he might not think the name is offensive (and it is, with a great deal of assumption of good faith, possible that the user is not intentionally being offensive), but that other users consider it offensive, and that is the criterion that should be used. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See

Damnit that was a shortcut to his userpage - what am I going to use now? Viridae^Talk 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimbo is probably the same number of keystrokes if you're not in the habit of keeping caps lock activated. —giggy

05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That works :P Viridae^Talk 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

These are just some for the "articles" (they are mostly stubs) I have found on anti-liberal/left wing slogans.

• Hollywood Left
• Liberal elite
• Champagne socialist
• East Coast liberal
• Gauche caviar
• Limousine liberal
• San Francisco values
• Chardonnay socialist
• Massachusetts liberal
• Chattering classes

Could all these be merged together under the title of Anti-liberal hate speech or something. Some if these are so absurd. While I am a proud "Latté Liberal", this is a little OTT. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what

talk pages are for. Naerii

04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And added to that, Champagne socialist doesn't even mention liberals, and unless you can find an abundance of sources to the contrary, "Anti-liberal hate speech" is more than a little POV. Naerii

Yes, but lets be honest, there are so many articles it would take months to get a consensus on every talk page, ive never been involved in multiple mergers. They are all ment to mean the same basic thing. Thus hopefully an admin could help me? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Slap {{mergeto|target}} on all pages and pick a talk page. —

Maggot^Syn

05:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, they should probably be merged to liberal elite. I will give it a go. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's Pinot noir socialist, if you have any real taste in wines. And Napa Valley is far too crass and commercial. Come, dear. Let's brush the dust off the leather seats in the Range Rover and do some tastings along the Russian River. And bring the Sierra Club manual so we can choose a good stroll; did you get the Bose stereo fixed like I asked? ;) Durova^Charge! 11:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heard in Cirencester some years ago (father to small son): "Peers, do be careful with that Mike and the Mechanics CD". 'Nuff said. --Rodhullandemu 10:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Persian Poet Gal has unblocked the user. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OnTheMantle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an extremely troubling edit here, which I indef blocked him/her for. At a glance, this editor appears to be a good faith contributor other than this incident, and my assumption was that the account had been compromised. It doesn't appear to have been compromised after all, but the user appears remorseful and has requested an unblock. I'm willing to accept that this was a momentary lapse in judgment, and I'm thinking of reducing it to something like three days, and an apology to Persian Poet Gal. Is this too lenient, or does it sound about right? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the above edit is deleted, here is a link to it. I would be against unblocking. That is completely unacceptable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the edit but I thought it would be worth pointing out that OnTheMantle has

T C

@ 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and all, I'd vote for an unblock for a second chance, but I'll stay out of this for now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a line in AGF...How can you possibly assume that the editor had good intentions with that edit? - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think since it was a direct attack again Persian Poet Gal she should choose whether to unblock. Also they should have to complete a {{2nd chance}} --Chris 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

4chan...it figures. That edit is awful, but 4chan is not known for mature and rational individuals. I'm inclined to unblock him, but any further inappropriate edits should result in an indef-block. As Chris G has suggested, I'd like for Persian Poet Gal to weigh in here. Horologium (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I believe this editor was goaded against his better interest or his account was compromised, after all we all make mistakes. I usually do not unblock accounts which solely intended to troll and have zero good edits their name. Since this one shows evidence of a better contribution history, I think a second chance is acceptable with the condition that some sort of explanation or proof of control of the account is shown. If they ever make the mistake to act so irresponsibly again I would suggest to block without any questions.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that he proved he was in control of the account on his talk page. I'm willing to give the second chance and have decided to unblock his account.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He suspected me of being a 98E sock. I just asked him if Patstuart was his Commons account. Haymail (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Corvus cornix_talk 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why what? Why did he suspect me or why did I ask him? I'll assume you mean the latter, and it's because he admitted as much on the Patstuart talk page on Commons. Haymail (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you ask him, and why does it matter? And why did you feel the need to report this question here? Corvus cornix_talk 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Haymail = User:98E. So blocked... Tiptoety ^talk 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares, Haymail interpreted commons:User talk:Patstuart/Archive 2#Image:Stop sign MUTCD.svg as Patstuart saying he's The Evil Spartan, when in fact Pat said the IP was TES (19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC) comment). —giggy 07:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[9]. Tiptoety ^talk 07:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been whittling at it for a couple of days now (finished off or consolidated 8 days today (in a measly 5 hours. Am I crazy, or what?), but there are currently 20 days worth of backlog here. When it was tagged "backlogged", on May 18, there were only 12 days backlogged. I'm thinking the tag isn't resolving the problem at the moment. Assistance would be most appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll direct some of my energy on CV. ---

WRE

) 19:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still plugging at it, though heading out of town for the night in a few. I dream of a world where there is (at least temporarily) no copyright problem backlog. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is it proper etiquette to suggest actions for discussion, eg for articles to merge, when you tend to disagree with the suggestion but are unsure what consensus will be? If I get around to it I'm going to contribute the determination here to the "Wikipedia:Etiquette" page.

Argument in favor. Where there's recurring suggestion (eg in the case at hand) that an action such as a merge should be taken, some participants feel frustrated and simply want to know if the suggestion should be taken or not so that they can be contributing on an article in its proper placement or form. This leads them, though they disagree with the action, to formally propose it themselves to get a sense of the community and move on.

How I understand the argument against. A person proposing an action he or she is against is making a strategic action that forces (similar to a Zugzwang in chess) opponents' hand to have to explain their rationale, giving advantage to the proposer, which is rude and results in unnecessary bias; ie when other contributors continue to suggest some action but don't initiate its formal resolution----just ignore them.

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Following the questioned procedure has been termed by a user as disruptive, hence posting the issue here and requesting administrative input. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for administrative actions which are not per se supported by nominating editor are both appropriate and commonplace. As long as a proposal is phrased neutrally, perhaps including the general sense of informal arguments made in favor of a nominated action, it is completely irrelevant whether an editor "in their heart of hearts" initially endorses the action.

Obviously, as with most any action on WP, there are cases of abuse. A "push poll" that disparages or negatively insinuates about a proposed action is a misuse of process. I have seen those, but the merge proposal that prompted this inquiry was nothing along those lines. LotLE×talk 18:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would term it disruptive, but I struggle to understand how it would be an act of good faith to propose & presumably mount an argument for an action that you think should not be taken. Surely in all circumstances in which it is possible to do that, it is possible to do the opposite: for instance, on a talk page, to open a discussion, for example, merge thoughts in which you might state that you believe it's reasonable to discuss a possible merge, but set out arguments against it ... rather than propose the merge merely to precipitate the discussion. If discussion of an action is likely enough that you'd think it worth mounting a Zugzwang, the harm you'd occasion is to mislead others about your own preferences and about the extent to which the proposal has support. And that being the case, it sounds a rather hazardous undertaking.

It's worth noting that IINAA, I merely lurk here. I'm sure you appreciate etiquette questions are for the whole community not merely admins, just as I appreciate that asking admins is a reasonable shortcut to better informed input. I leave it to you to decide whether the outcome of this discussion is something that should be added to WP:Etiquette ... but if it is, then it should properly be discussed there and not here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have frequently seen good-faith AfD nominations by editors who do not necessarily support the deletion. Normally these arise from suggestions on talk pages that a given article should be deleted, but where the editors making that suggestion do not do the nomination (for whatever reason). In such cases, an editor generally supportive of the article existing puts the article on AfD as a "sanity check" to gauge opinion of previously uninvolved editors. In such cases, it's probably best practice for the nominating editor to skip voting him/herself (but even that seems borderline). The point is that all the additional editors are perfectly well able to use their own judgment about the notability, etc. of the article so nominated. All of this seems good, proper, and helpful. A merge proposal is essentially identical to an AfD (in fact, AfD's often result in "merge" consensus). LotLE×talk 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would depend entirely on the circumstances, and the form of the proposal. I would say that these things have a way of unfolding on their own, and an attempt to "force someone's hand" doesn't seem especially constructive. Rather than contributing directly to Wikipedia:Etiquette, it would be better to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Etiquette. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Lulu, I thought I'd wait for more uninvolved people to comment on this, rather than having it as a continuation of our conversation on Talk: Lolo Soetoro#Merge proposal - I assume that was the reason that Justmeherenow brought it here (although I agree that maybe Wikipedia talk: Etiquette is a better place), and you and I have already stated our opinions on the Soetoro talk page. But since you are commenting here on this I guess I will too. (I would like to hear from more uninvolveds though.) My opinion is that making a proposal when you oppose it is inherently unfair to the proposal because you are not the best person to make the arguments in favor of it, or respond to other people's comments and defend the proposal. Supporters may or may not be available or think the article is at the right place in the process to make a merge or delete nomination themselves, and they may not be ready or able to participate in discussion at that time - when they are ready to make a proposal, they do so, and in any nom that is disputed they take the role of defending the proposal, sometimes vigorously. I think an opposer making the proposal is something akin to gaming to force their hand. My observation here has been that merge and delete noms are generally, if not always, made by supporters of the proposal, when they think it is the right time to do so, and they defend it, discuss it, hopefully reach consensus on it which sometimes includes their changing their own minds about their support. As Tagishsimon said above, part of making a nomination involves mounting an argument in favor of it; it's asking for an awful lot of good faith for an opposer to sustain an argument in favor of something he or she actually opposes. I suppose that an uninvolved, neutral person might be willing to take on the support role (that was not the case in the specific nom that precipitated this AN discussion), but I don't think I've seen even that and I don't think that is particularly fair to the proposal either. And I'm not talking about the technicality of who initiates the proposal - I'm talking about mounting a defense for a position: if a neutral party makes a proposal in order to move things along and a supporter is willing/able to come in and take over the support role, then I likely wouldn't have a problem with it, although would still question the timing if it is an opposer who does so. As for my referring to this in the Lolo (and Maya) Soetoro proposals as "disruptive", I'm not assigning motives or citing policy breaches (because I haven't looked for any policy/guideline on this), but they were not the action of a neutral party, and I think they were improper; they are disruptive, in my view, because they take attention away from the editing of the article. Tvoz/talk 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, I have great regard for you as an editor, and agree, non-Loloites (see Lolo Soetoro) are the best to comment here. But Justmeherenow invited me, so here, again, are my two cents. If any user is suggesting a major change to an article, I don't see why it matters who formalizes that request. From the Lolo discussion, the request was to merge that article with other Obama family members. I oppossed this request, however, since one user kept suggesting it, it seemed like it was worth getting further input from the broader wiki community. Therefore I added a reference request to the main merger page to get broader input over at Lolo. I later removed that request when it was clear nobody at Lolo favored a merge at this time, including the user who kept referring to it.

How is someone in favor of something inherently more objective than someone oppossed? If an issue is hanging then why not promote the discussion to get more input and encourage a consensus? That seemed to be what Justmeherenow was doing. There you have it, the wisdom of the wiki world from me. ; ) --Utahredrock (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said, for a change. I don't think someone in favor of something is inherently more objective, I think that someone in favor of a proposal is more likely to give a convincing defense of it and someone opposed is more likely to give a convincing argument against it. WHat's confusing about that? This is not unique to Wikipedia, it's a true point overall. In debate club one is supposed to effectively argue any side of an argument, but this isn't debate club. Tvoz/talk 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Still highly confused here. How/why is a proponent of an action uniquely qualifed to propose a debate/discussion? This is completely illogical. Anyone on either side of an issue is clearly equally qualified to raise the issue. Some really smart people can equally argue both sides.--Utahredrock (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't voting, but by analogy: if you want one guy to win, don't vote for the other guy.

In the same way, when trying to form a consensus, always state/argue/open discussion on the thing you do want, lest you convince everyone to do the thing you don't want. ;-)

And try to avoid proposing things. Typically it's a waste of time, since there's a "revert button". Either do, or do not. If everyone else really hates the idea, they can just revert you. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Not following that. Consensus is reached after discussion (hopefully), and one of the best tools to make a decision is to have a vote--though I suppose it's also true to say that "consensus isn't voting." Not following the rest of your comments very easily.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Utahredrock - votes are discouraged as they don't lead to consensus, which means compromise. They separate into two groups and the "losers" just have to eat it. That's not consensus. Kim is saying that arguing the other guy's position is dangerous to your own because the other guy might "win" - I agree, but also think it is unfair. Tvoz/talk 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yin and yang: the political power of a mastery of

boldness

if anything's ever to get accomplished.

"It's simple: - Remain neutral - Don't be a dick - Ignore all rules."---- (Anonymous epigraph featured on Kim Bruning's homepage)

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to

Mediawiki

is pretty tough piece of code, so nothing you do can hurt it.

Most of the time, that's all you need to know. However, sometimes, someone will really really disagree with something you did. They will

Sound familiar?

 ;-)

Note that this is a cycle! The point of a wiki is to edit, so try to get back to editing as quickly as possible.

Majority voting is not typically used as a decision making mechanism, except in exceptional circumstances. Lots of stuff that look like votes are actually opinion polls, which can be a useful tool for figuring out where you are in the consensus process. Learn about how consensus works before you try to use opinion polls yourself.

The reason you should always put forward your actual preference is due to something called the Abilene paradox, where you end up doing something that nobody actually wants.

Finally, the "anonymous epigraph" actually has a link right above it. It's

5 pillars which I like very much. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk

) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't votes combined with discussion the normal method of handling disputes on Wikipedia? I've seen that repeatedly in the Wiki-kingdom.--Utahredrock (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall that – once upon a time –

in good faith

. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, election, or chess tournament, and pretending to hold opinions as part of some sort of strategic feint or debating tactic is frowned upon.

If there is a genuine issue in question, misrepresenting yourself as a proponent of the 'other side' opens up the chance for all kinds of misbehaviour—deliberate or not. Dirty tricks may include damning by faint praise (clumsy or incomplete presentation of the other side's arguments), becoming a 'convert' brought over to a 'new' way of seeing things, and using straw man arguments (misrepresenting the 'other side' to a lesser or greater extent so as to make it less appealing). I've seen all three, done with varying amounts of good (and bad) faith.

In the particular case I really don't want to troll through the whole history of the article, but it looks like Justmeherenow added a {merge} tag to Lolo Soetoro and then went to the talk page and left a request for comments ([10]) without further explanation of why a merge would be either worthwhile or detrimental. A couple of hours later he went and opposed his own merge proposal ([11]). A while later, when another editor pointed out to Justmeherenow that his actions might be construed as fixing the debate (my characterization), he deleted his 'oppose' and comment with the statement that he had 'decided to stay officially neutral'.

Justmeherenow, you can't declare that sort of thing after the fact—you can't have back the cloak of neutrality simply because you decided to try to stuff the cat back in the bag. By deleting your comment you misrepresented yourself to every genuinely neutral editor who might subsequently look at the merge proposal. A third party coming to the page from

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers

would see only a proposed merge without any arguments in favour.

What I see here is an effort by an editor opposed to a potential merger of the article trying to dynamite any future possibility of such a merge. His intentions were good, but his methods were not. Looking through the talk page, it appears that Tvoz had occasionally suggested that a merger would be an appropriate eventual course, but Tvoz never acted on that. It's also clear that Tvoz is aware that such a merger would be opposed, and it seems unlikely that he would proceed with a merge without discussion. (Even if Tvoz did try it, it seems probable that the merge would be reverted and a discussion begun.)

There was no urgent need to have a merge debate right this instant, and there was no reason why Justmeherenow could not have asked Tvoz to present any merge proposal at an appropriate time. As it stands right now, I would be concerned that editors in the future might erroneously rely on this tainted and flawed debate to conclude that the merge issue had been settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, That's a long-winded way to say Justmeherenow acted in bad faith. I disagree. A user was repeatedly suggesting a merge. Why not ask for other input on the idea? To assume a proposal for discussing the topic is bad faith is itself bad faith. This whole discussion is pretty ridiculous, but kind of fun too--in that weird wiki way.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you TenofAllTrades - you have it exactly right, and stated it more clearly than I did. Tvoz/talk 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I "trolled" this noticeboard for admin comment and I got it. Thanks TenofAllTrades. I'm going to cross out my own comments in the "Merge proposal" section and archive it. — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Short version: You can do it, and maybe there's some utility sometimes. But most of the time it's a bad idea, because you risk an Abilene paradox. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I'd rather stay home and play dominoes on the porch, thanks ;-)